gandhian constitution of india

8/13/2019 Gandhian Constitution of India

1/40

Gandhian Constitution for Free India

Part One

1 Introduction

2 Basic Principles

3 Democracy at the Crossroads

4 The Gandhian Way

Part Two

5 Village as Basic Unit

6 Taluka and District Panchayats

7 The Provincial Government

8 The Central Government

9 The Judiciary

10 System of Elections

11 Finance and Taxation

12 Education

13 Crime and Punishment

14 Concluding observations

1


2/40

PREAMBLE

Realising Gandhian Democracy

for Global Sustainabili ty

Prof. Shriman Narayan, earlier known as Prof. Shriman Narayan Agarwal was Principal, Sikasaria

College of Commerce, Wardha, in the 1940s. He was an ardent follower of Gandhi and wrote various

books on Gandhis thoughts. He deserves to be commended for putting together this book for otherwise

Gandhis concepts of governance would have remained scattered in his various writings. Published by

Kitabistan, Allahabad in 1946, the book is now mostly not available. Since it is a path-breaking document

that can provide direction to the world in turmoil, People First procured its copy from the Parliament

Library and is republishing it with annotations to clarify issues and provide a process for realising it..

This section fortifies Gandhis vision by establishing that the present Constitution lacks legitimacy. We

have shown that what Gandhi advocated can be the only true universal democracy, and is, in fact, being

largely practised in the best democracies of the world such as the Swiss. A powerful process for realising

it has also been conceptualised.

As has happened to original thinkers all through history, the Indian leadership, influenced by the efficiency

of the colonial administration and the then prevailing appeal of Soviet socialism, ignored Gandhis vision,

and instituted a constitution three-fourth of which is based on exploitative colonial laws. The leadership

also imposed the Soviet practices of centralised resources management and a controlled economy, thus

creating a mixed economy in a mixed-up polity. In 50 years, it has led to all round social, environmental,

economic and political degradation in the country.

Gandhi is still revered as the father of the nation. However, his memory has been frozen in attitudes such

as wearing khadi, sweeping streets on his birth anniversaries, and using him on election posters. Nothing

that he preached can be realised unless a truly democratic societal structure in which power flows upward

from the people is instituted.

Power having got centralised, it is now difficult to restore it to the people. Legislators who alone can

amend the Constitution are unwilling to do so. A Frankenstein or Bhasmasur that is destroying its creator,

the people, has thus been instituted. In a perverse way, the political leadership itself has become a victim

of the system. Most educated elite familiar with colonial institutions, are unable to comprehend the

meaning of democracy.

Leaders such as Vinoba Bhave, Balwant Rai Mehta, Jai Prakesh Narayan and Dr Ram Manohar Lohia

tried but failed. Most Gandhians have now become disheartened, disillusioned and tired, and have

apparently given up hope.

Some leaders contend that Gandhian Constitution ought to have been adopted after independence andthat it is impossible to do so now because of the massive centralised institutions especially bureaucracy

built up during the past fifty years. It is true that it is much more difficult to change the system now than it

would have been soon after independence. However, we have no option. If we do not, we will, like

Pakistan and Bangladesh, become ungovernable.

After half a century since independence, India is nowhere near self-reliance. The political system is

incapable of dealing with the situation. It only reacts to short term internal pressures, or succumbs to

2


3/40

foreign dictates having long term adverse implications for the nation. Political instability, social strife and

lawlessness are now pervasive. If we do not change now, we will drift into anarchy and foreign economic

dependence worse than colonialism.

Based on our research, we have come to the conclusion that except for fundamental rights that give a

feeling of democracy, the Constitution, based on anti-people, exploitative colonial institutions, has basic

structural flaws and lacks legitimacy. Power having got centralised, the political system is now unwilling to

invert the power structure. The only method by which effective reforms can be brought about is by the

sovereign people through referendums. People First has conceptualised an institutional mechanism for

directing referendums. The legal and ethical issues are discussed in following three sections.

1. An illegitimate ConstitutionThe Constitution was authenticated in the name of "We, the people". What didwe give to ourselves? We assigned all our resources to the union and stategovernments, authorised our elected representatives to take all decisions on ourbehalf, and allowed them to keep them secret from us. We enabled them toappoint an overbearing bureaucracy not accountable to us, and to abuse it torule over us at the local level. We, the people, may be poor and illiterate, butwould have to be morons to give to ourselves, such an anti-people Constitution.Based on exploitative colonial institutions, it was clearly imposed on us.

This is similar to an agent usurping property by fraudulently obtaining the thumbimpression of the client. The people were betrayed.The legitimacy of theConstitution, authenticated in the name of the people in violation of their trust, is questionable.The colonial ghost still rules us. The elected servants have become the virtual masters, and the appointedservants behave as though they are the masters of the people.

Except for fundamental rights declared sacrosanct by the Supreme Court, the Constitution isintrins ically faulty. It is a fraud on the people of India.The nation kept degenerating sinceindependence. Today, it is boiling. Unless the Constitution is corrected soon through referendums,anarchy will overtake us. "We, the people" have the responsibility to correct it.2. Basic Structure of Universal Democracy

"The State represents violence in a concentrated and organised form. The individual has a soul but as the

state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its very

existence". Mahatma Gandhi

Political science has failed as a discipline. It analyses democratic

experiences but does not define democracy. Democracy can best be

defined ashow the common people would like the nation to be governed.Given the choice, the people would first retain resources with local

governments for handling all local matters including administration of

justice, police, education, healthcare, land, water systems and forests.

To prevent abuse of authority, they would institute their sovereign rights to

information, consultation, participation and referendum.

3


4/40

They would devolve the remaining resources to the state and national governments for providing higher

level infrastructure, support to regions with inadequate resources, and to coordinate, but not interfere in

local decision-making.

The people would make the elected executives at all levels directly accountable to them, and not via the

elected body, with the right to recall those elected. Legislators would perform watchdog functions, not

assume executive authority.

The people would also institute effective mechanisms, such as departmental heads appointed on contract

with the approval of the elected body, thus making the bureaucracy directly accountable to them.

Along with certain rights regarded as fundamental to democracy, this can be said to be the basic structure

of universal democracy.

Gandhi advocated such a democracy. He added some powerful features for containing

consumption and promoting social justice and equity. These have today become highly relevant

for global sustainability.

3. Gandhis Special Features

Based on Indian ethos and values, Gandhi added some powerful features for containing consumption and

promoting social justice and equity. These are:

1 Village governments in which the village assembly controls resources and decision-making;

2 Decentralised production systems to curb distress migration to urban centres;

3 Self-sustaining local economies providing resilience to regional and global economic turbulence;

4 A low expense clean election system;

5 National governments accountable to local governance as a check against arrogance

of the state;

6 Industry as trusteeship of the people, reinvesting in production of goods and services and not indulging

in ostentatious consumption; and

7 Religions integrated as a positive force at the grassroots level.

4. Conscience Keeper of the State

Thomas Jefferson observed, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate powers of society but the people

themselves". The key to good governance is to design a mechanism that ensures that people, not their

elected servants, are truly the repository of the ultimate power of society.

All nation-states need a new institution, Sovereign Rights Commission

with authority to direct referendums, except on issues fundamental to

democracy or the integrity of the nation.There can thus be no referendum

4


5/40

on the state being theocratic or a region seceding. These commissions will oversee that the sovereign

rights of the people to information, consultation, participation and referendums are properly instituted and

accessible to the people. They will, through referendums held along with local, state or national elections,

as may be appropriate, correct faulty institutions of governance, and overrule undesirable decisions

based on power and business politics and kickbacks, that degrade the society or the environment. They

will thus provide a legitimate, non-violent process for revitalising the society.

Like the royal priest or raj guru of bygone days, such commissions will function as the

consc ience keeper of the state, based on the values of the society as a whole.

On approval by the people, the commissions will authenticate the proposal truly in the name of the

people, appropriately phase it, and monitor its timely and proper implementation.

In Pakistan and Philippines, dictators abused referendums to legitimise their rule for life. Referendum is

not a right of the representatives, but of the people to overrule their representatives.

The Constitution of Sri Lanka provides that the parliament can direct referendums. Recently, its President

proposed referendum on granting local autonomy to the Tamil region. It truly is their democratic right. Theopposition politicised and blocked it.

Independent commissions with authority to direct referendums, is clearly the best solution for

safeguarding the four sovereign rights of the people. However, to guard against its members acting in

collusion with political or business interests, the people can additionally provide that if 10 per cent of

village or urban neighbourhood assemblies, through resolution, demand referendum on any issue, it shall

be mandatory for the commission to process it.

The Economist of December 21, 1996 in an article "Full Democracy" observed that democracy shall be

entering a new phase in the twenty-first century, bordering on direct democracy, through increasing use

of referendums. The Sovereign Rights Commission is thus clearly a vital key institution of the future.

5. Supreme Public Interest

Indias lawmakers, busy abusing authority, have sanctified the colonial rule by retaining most of itsexploitative laws and procedural manuals, many even of the nineteenth century. Most laws made afterindependence, including the panchayati raj amendments too are based on thecolonial idiom that thestate is best, knows best and people, being unreliable and untrustworthy, need to be ruled.

The lawmakers cannot be expected to do better now in the era of coalition politics. The only way out is toseek orders from the sovereign people through referendums. To facilitate this, an institutional mechanismfor directing referendums is needed. To avoid wasteful expenditure, the existing Law Commissions at theunion and state levels can be upgraded to independent Sovereign Rights Commissions with authority to

direct referendums except on issues fundamental to democracy or the integrity of the nation.

According to Justice MN Venkatachaliah,referendum is the supreme sovereign right of the people,intrinsic to democracy,and exists even if not specifically provided for in a constitution. The issue is, canthe people approach the superior courts seeking a writ for upgrading the Law Commissions toindependent Sovereign Rights Commissions with authority to direct referendums? The courts clearly haveno jurisdiction and it is only the prerogative of legislatures to do so. The people can however approachthe superior courts seeking a writ directing a referendumon thus upgrading the Law Commissions. Sincereferendum is an intrinsic sovereign right of the people, the courts have jurisdiction to issue such a writ.

5


6/40

If the courts hold that they have no jurisdiction to direct even one such referendum, it would imply that thesovereign people have been rendered impotent and must only suffer abuse.A Consti tution that makesthe sovereign impotent is bad law.It is accepted law that for every wrong there should be a remedy.The only remedy is a referendum, an intrinsic right of the sovereign people, on instituting suchcommissions. The courts have jurisdiction to issue such a writ, and must do so in the interest of justice.

The world is today confronted by widespread degradation in poor nations and unsustainable consumptionby rich nations. A global society in which local communities control resources and decision-making, asadvocated by Gandhi, alone can save the earth. Gandhi is truly the apostle of the third millennium.

6


7/40

Chapter 1

Introduction

"Britain," observes Pearl Buck, "is a democracy fighting for its empire"1. Nothing could be more complexthan this phenomenon in human history, because democracy and imperialism are essentially

incompatible. But Britain has been practising such double faced morality all the time, and it is idle toexpect that she would Quit India with good grace. Be that as it may, I have no manner of doubt that Indiawill win her political freedom before long, despite Britains desire to hold her own. In his Shape of Thingsto Come, HG Wells visualises that the British grip on India will relax to nothing after a brief convulsivephase of firmness. I earnestly believe that this convulsive phase which has been so conspicuous duringthe last three years, is now at the fag end and that the present gloom and darkness will soon yield to theglorious dawn of independence. Without freedom to a big and ancient Asiatic country like India, worldpeace is a sheer impossibility. A slave India will be an ever growing menace to international harmony andgoodwill. The world therefore cannot afford to deny her the freedom to be free2.

The question naturally arises: what kind of constitution shall free India have? Shall we imitate some ofthe western constitutions like those of Switzerland, the United States or Russia? Or shall we try to evolvea swadeshi constitution based on our national genius, culture and traditions?

India is a very ancient land. A study of her past constitutional development would indicate that she hadenjoyed almost all the possible varieties of political organisation many years before Christ. At a time whenEurope and the New World had not even come within the pale of civilisation, India had experimented withmonarchy, autocracy, democracy, republicanism and even anarchy. In his Hindu Policy, KP Jayaswaltells us of the Bhaujya Swarajya, Vairajya Rashtrika, Dvairajya and Arajaka constitutions in ancientIndian. Some of these types have, perhaps, not been tried in other countries at all. India, therefore, maybe regarded as an ancient laboratory of constitutional development. To manufacture for her a mixture ofwestern constitutions, which are yet in the melting pot, will be not only a great insult to India but will alsobetray gross ignorance of sociological science. For, constitutions are always in the nature of organicgrowth; it is most unscientific to foist on a country a system of administration foreign to its own genius.

Administrative systems cannot and should not be transplanted. In the words of Sir John Marriott,constitutions are not exportable commodities3 Each nation has its unique culture and civilisation which

may be called its soul. This uniqueness must be evolved and preserved in all phases of national life.Virile and natural diversity is life; dull and imitative uniformity is death.Let me not be misunderstood. I do not mean to suggest that we should be blind to the experiences ofother nations and develop a kind of narrow nationalism. Far from it. But it is high time for us to realise thatour sense of inferiority complex must go, and instead of always looking to the West, we should cultivatethe habit of looking within. We have aped the West for long; let us now be proud of our Indian culture andinstitutions in the rights spirit.

I go a step further. The type of decentralised democracy that India had carefully evolved and maintainedfor centuries in the form of village republics was not a relic and survival of tribal communism; it was aproduct of mature thought and serious experimentation. The kind of local self-government that ourcountry had developed in her numberless village communities stood the test of centuries of political

storms and is still capable of being organised into an ideal form of democratic administration. I do notsuggest that the old system of local administration should be re-introduced exactly in the ancient form.Several modifications will have to be incorporated to suit modern conditions of civic life.

Let us cast a glance at the history of constitution making in India during the twentieth century. I need notmention the constitutional reforms introduced by the British Government in 1909, 1919 and 1935. In spiteof the definite opinion of British constitution makers that constitutions cannot be imported, these reformswere unhesitatingly exported from England to India. They bore no relation to the spirit of renaissance inthis country. Mahatma Gandhi was the first leader who directed his attention towards the evolution of an

7


8/40

indigenous culture and civilisation. His Hind Swaraj that was written in 1908 contained the basic ideals onwhich the future Constitution of India should be based. We, then, come across the Congress-LeagueScheme of 1916. Although it incorporated no special principles and was in line with the BritishParliamentary system, the joint scheme was an earnest attempt to frame a satisfactory constitutionacceptable to both the Hindus and the Muslims. Deshbandhu CR Das and Dr Bhagavandas prepared anOutline Scheme of Swaraj after the Gaya Congress in 1922. But Dr. Annie Besant accomplished realpioneering work by placing before the country, in consultation with many prominent Indian leaders, TheCommonwealth of India Bill in 1924-25. Although Dr Besant wanted India to remain within the BritishEmpire as a self-governing dominion, she upheld the ideal of the ancient village panchayat system as thebasis of our future constitution. Later, in 1928, was published the report of the All Parties Conference,popularly known as the Nehru Report. The new constitution of the Aundh State that was framed in 1939under the guidance of Gandhiji was another landmark in the history of constitutional development. Itestablished panchayat raj in the state on completely democratic lines. The latest effort in constitutionmaking is the well-known report of the Conciliation Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Tej BahadurSapru.

It is desirable, however, to frame a Constitution with the background of Indian traditions. Unfortunately,most of our leaders have not cared to study the ancient Indian institutions. Gandhiji along has been layingstress on this aspect of national reconstruction. I, therefore, consulted him regarding the advisability ofdrawing up a swadeshi constitution for swaraj. He fully appreciated the need for such a constitution and

kindly agreed to give me the necessary guidance. I decided to call the constitution the GandhianConstitution because Gandhiji more than anybody else, symbolises and upholds Indian culture andtraditions. Moreover, I have discussed with him almost all the details of the constitution and every attempthas been made to represent his views correctly. I cannot, however, hold Gandhiji responsible for everyword or thought. The ultimate responsibility is entirely mine.

8


9/40

Chapter2Basic Principles

The first point which needs to be clearly understood is that there is nothing like the best constitution forall countries and for all times (not true; the basic structure of democracy is universal (see preamble) - People First). Forms ofgovernment must be shaped according to past traditions and present circumstances. That constitution isbest which at any given moment, in any particular country, most effectively contributes to the end forwhich all governments exist.1Aristotle was, perhaps, the first thinker to emphasise this standpoint. Thestate existed to enable the individual to realise the highest life of which he is capable, and those may beexpected to lead the best life who are governed in the best manner of which their circumstances admit.2We must, therefore, judge the state not by some standard of values peculiar to and distinctive of thestate, but by the standard of the quality of the lives lived by its citizen3. While the ends of various types ofstates may be fundamentally identical, their forms are bound to be dissimilar in accordance with localenvironments.

2.1 The End of the StateBut what is the end of the state? This question is, indeed, pivot on which political thought has been

continuously revolving from ancient times to this day. Plato regarded the state as a macrocosm in whichthe individual could find his proper place and perform the duties for which he was best fitted. Aristotlebelieved that the purpose of the state was mainly ethical; it was a community of equals, aiming at thebest life possible. According to Hobbes, the purpose of the State was to maintain order and protect theright of property. To Locke, the end of Government was the preservation of lives, liberties and estates.Rousseau regarded the state as a social contract to fulfil the general will. Hegel revived the Greektheory that the state was the greatest reality. " The existence of the state," wrote Hegal, "is the movementof God in the world." "It is the absolute power on earth; it is its own end and object. Bentham maintainedthat the State existed to secure the greatest good of the greatest number. To Herbert Spencer, the statewas a joint-stock protection company for mutual assurance. John Stuart Mill passionately advocated theliberty of the individual as the sacred duty of the state. Marx expected the state to wither away afterestablishing a classless society. In our own times, Prof Laski regards the state as a fellowship of menaiming at the enrichment of the common life1. To Bernard Shaw, the aim of a state ought to be thegreatest available welfare for the whole population and not for a class. Wells pleads for establishment of

a world state, in which the freedom, health and happiness of every individual are protected by a universallaw based on a re-statement of the rights of man.

Indian political thought is contained mainly in the two epicRasmayana and Mahabharata, the Manusmriti,Kautilyas Artha-Sastra, and Shukracharyas Nitisara. The Ramayana describes the ideal kingdom ofRama in which people were happy, peaceful and prosperous. In Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata,Bhishma enumerates the duties of a kingdom, the chief end of the state being the protection of thecitizens so that they may lead a happy, righteous and harmonious life, following their respective dharmasor duties. Kautilya also emphasises the basic principle that the happiness and welfare of the people areprimary duties of the king or the state. In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness; in their welfarehis welfare1. In Shukraniti, the king is primarily the protector and benefactor of his subjects; he has todiscipline the lives of the citizens in such a manner that each follows his own vocation according to hisdharma without encroaching upon the spheres of others.

2.2 Totalitarian State v/s Totalitarian ManIf we carefully study and analyse all these European and Indian political theories regarding the end andfunction of the State, we shall discern two distinct streams of thought. One set of thinkers attachimportance to the state, and subordinate the freedom of the individual to the power of the state. Theyglorify and deify the state at the cost of the individual. To them the end of the state is the discipline of itscitizens by making them mere cogs of a powerful political machine. This stream of thought leads todictatorship, autocracy or totalitarianism. The other set of political thinkers regard man as the measure ofall things. To them, the freedom and development of the individual is of supreme moment. The function

9


10/40

of the state, according to them, is to safeguard the rights of the individual. They respect man as an endand not as a means. Count Coudenhove Kalergi, in his Totalitarian State against Man classifies thesetwo schools of political thought as the Spartan ideal of totalitarian State and the Athenian ideal oftotalitarian Man. In Sparta, man lived for the sake of the state; in Athens, state lived for the sake of man.These two political ideologies have also been described as collectivism and individualism. Truth lies in thehappy fusion of these two streams.

The end or function of the state ought to be a harmonious adjustment of the interests of the individual andthe state. To use a different phraseology, our aim should be poise between liberty and authority. TheState should facilitate, promote and strengthen mutual accommodation of individual and group welfare.The individual should perform his duty towards the State and the State should safeguard the rights of theindividual and enable him to develop his personality to the fullest possible extent. Prof. Tawney expressesthe same idea in terms of the Functional Society, that is, a society in which rights are contingent onfunctions or social service1. In other words, individual rights and freedom ought to be relative andconditional; they cannot be supreme and absolute.

The all-powerful state reduces the individuals to mere ciphers. Moreover, such totalitarian states, whetherfascist or socialist, are ultimately controlled by one or a few supermen who rule over the destinies ofmillions. But man, in order to survive must get rid of such supermen, however noble and high intentionedthey may be. There is no hope for civilisation in Government by idolised single individuals2. The

spectacular rise and fall of Hitler and Mussolini are glowing proof of the futility of arrogant dictatorships.Whether Hitler is dead or still alive, the fact remains that he has been reduced to a myth and a fable.

2.3 Russian DemocracyRussia has evolved another type of government that is generally termed as the dictatorship of theproletariat. The end of the Marxian State is a classless and democratic society. But such a society issought to be achieved through the ruthless regimentation of the masses with the hope that ultimately thestate would disappear. But as Prof Aldous Huxley remarks, "such a highly centralised dictatorial statemay be smashed by war or overturned by revolution from below; there is not the smallest reason tosuppose that it will wither away"3. John Gunther fears: "Russia may become a dictatorship not of but overthe proletariat"4. Prof. Joad in his Guide to the Philosophy of Morals and Polities, observes:"The study of history suggests that dictatorships from their very nature become, as they grow older, notless, but more extreme; not less but more sensitive to and impatient of criticism. Developments in thecontemporary world support this view. Yet the theory of communism postulates precisely the reverse ofwhat history teaches, and maintains that at a given moment a dictatorial government will be willing toreverse the engines, to relinquish power, and, having denied liberty, to concede it. Neither history norpsychology affords any warrant for this conclusion."Prof. Ginsberg, in his Psychology of Society. points out how any centralised form of government isbound to be oligarchic in tendency. Acharya Vinoba Bhave holds the same view because centralisation,whether capitalist or socialist, involves violence, suppression and militraism.1

2.4 Case for DemocracyThe only alternatives, therefore, before the world is democracy. It stands, or, at any rate, ought to standfor the unfolding of human personality within a properly organised government. While it grants freedom toindividuals, it constantly reminds them that along with the exercise of their legitimate rights they have alsoto discharge certain duties towards the state or society. Lincoln defined democracy as government of thepeople, by the people, for the people.

Although this Gettysburg motto has been reduced to a hackneyed phrase, it is much more significant thanwhat we usually believe. As Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt points out, the basis of democracy is moral andreligious; it implies brotherhood and deep regard for one another so that "our own success, to be real,must contribute to the success of others".

10


11/40

Plato did not favour a democratic constitution because it tended to be controlled by a class of idle anddissolute men5. That is why he preferred the enlightened despotism of the philosopher king todemocracy. Rousseau held that perfect democracy was not for man. Were there a people of gods, theirgovernment would be democratic3. De Tocqueville concluded that democracy led to a dead level ofmediocrity. Sir Henry Maine was afraid that popular government would inaugurate an era of stagnation.Lacky regarded democracy as too meddlesome and antithetical to liberty. Bismarck scoffed at democracyas blubbering sentimentality. The well-known French writer, Faquet, described democracy as the cult ofincompetence. To Nietzsche, democracy was a degenerating form of political organisation. Voltaire wasagainst democracy because he compared the people to oxen which need a yoke, a goad and hay. In ourown times, Bernard Shaw regards Lincolns definition of democracy as romantic nonsense. "Thepeople," writes Shaw, "have obstructed government often enough; they have revolted; but they havenever really governed."

Yet the truth remains that democracy is the only type of government which can harmonise the interests ofthe individual and the state. Although, as I said in the beginning, it is not possible to lay down any onetype of constitution as the best for all countries and for all times, it must be conceded that democracyalone provides the best milieu or environment for the promotion of good life. "The admission on equalterms of the largest possible number of members of a community to share in its government on equalterms best promotes the satisfaction of all the members as individuals, and also the welfare of thecommunity as a whole," observes Lord Bryce1. Moreover, as Prof. Lennard remarks, "democracy is more

that a form of government; it is a social ideal, and the difficulty of the ideal is commensurate with itsnobility."2

Democracy is of immense value because it respects man. "The magic of political democracy", says MrsWebb, "lies in its enlargement of human personality"3. From the standpoint of national morality, points outJohn Stuart Mill, "the supreme merit of democracy lies in the fact that it promotes a better and higher formof national character than any other polity whatever". From the educational point of view, democracy is tobe preferred because, as Prof. Burns declares, the best education is self-education. Democracy taps thesources of political talent that lie beyond the purview of other systems of government.

It must be admitted, however, that democracy, like many other good things of life, covers a multitude ofsins. It is, at present, plagued with numerous evils and shortcomings. Democracy is, veritably, on trial; it isat the crossroads. Let us examine in greater details the implications of this crisis in democracy.

11


12/40

Chapter3Democracy at the Crossroads

The First World War was fought to make the world safe for democracy and to end war for all time. Instead

of establishing peace, it laid the foundation of a deadlier second war. The Second World War was fought

to respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, Laski

remarked. It gives democracy another chance, adds Laski, it is not in itself an assurance that the

chance will be taken1. There are no democracies in the West, remarks Bernard Shaw, They are only

rank plutocracies, all of them now fascist to the tips. The United States, being younger and wiser, does

not care for visible empire but its invisible empire is sure to spread and that too, in the name of the four

freedoms. The USSR is shrewdest making it safe for socialism. Thus, the prospects of democracy even

after the Second World War are very dark and bleak.

3.1 Capitalist Democracy

The causes of crisis in western democracy are not far to seek. To use Prof Tawneys phrase, it is thepresent acquisitive society which is the root cause of our economic and political malaise. Capitalism can

afford to be liberal and suave and sweet so long as its pockets are not touched. It offers social reforms

and political freedom to the masses but upon the tacit understanding that the political power shall not be

utilised to cut at the very root of the capitalist system. As soon as its very existence is jeopardised,

capitalism at once throws off the velvet glove that conceals the iron fist. The privileged classes continue

to pay the pipers so long as they agree to call their tunes. But they do not hesitate to employ the forces of

leonine violence to preserve their past glory and present luxuries. For, what is fascism after all? Prof.

Laski defines fascism as the epitaph upon those forces of privilege which seek to imprison the future by

defending an obsolete past with violence2. In other words, fascism is capitalist democracy turned at bay.

There is indeed an inherent contradiction between capitalism and democracy. In a capitalist society the

motive to production is profit for the owner of the instruments of production. In a democracy the citizen

seeks, by the use of his political power, to use the authority of the state to increase the material wellbeing

at his disposal.

The union of economic oligarchy and political democracy worked well enough so long as capitalism was

in its phase of expansion. But the period of contraction set in after the last War. It resulted in widespread

unemployment and gave rise to a curious phenomenon of poverty in the midst of plenty. The masses

tried to exercise their political power for the amelioration of their material wellbeing. This was a direct

challenge to the economic privileges of the owning class. Hence the birth of fascist dictatorships and

totalitarianism. Even the so-called democracies of Britain and Union States are intrinsically fascist. The

difference between Britain and Germany was only of degree and not of kind. Where the socialist danger

was greater, as in Italy and Germany, fascism was more aggressive and dictatorial.

In the democracies, capitalism was not faced with any serious menace; hence it could afford to remain

comparatively calm and tolerant. But real democracy is impossible in a society that remains divided, to

use Platos terminology, into the cities of the rich and the cities of the poor. "So long as the state

expresses a society divided into economic classes, it is always the servant of that class which owns or

dominates the ownership of the instruments of production1". There can, thus, be no essential change in

the character of the present society without a change in its economic postulates. Otherwise, democracy

becomes the handmaid of capitalism. The moneyed class, directly or indirectly, controls the legislatures,

12


13/40

the press and publishing houses, educational institutions, and other instruments of propaganda. It exploits

democracy to its own ends and ultimately reduces it to plutocracy. As Lord Bryce observes, Democracy

has no more persistent or insidious foe than money power." The enemy is formidable because "he works

secretly by persuasion or by deceit, rather than by force and so takes men unawares2." From the old days

of pocket boroughs to the modern times of lobbying and nursing the constituencies, the mischievous

tale of capitalist democracy remains very much the same.

3.2 Democracy v/s MobocracyApart from the unhealthy power of money in modern democracies, the system of electioneering is very

defective and undesirable. The existence of big constituencies makes direct and intimate contact between

the voters and the candidates well nigh impossible. This inevitably leads to electioneering campaigns,

the evils of which are only too well known to all of us. Bernard Shaw in his inimitable style describes such

election meetings as scandalous and disgusting spectacles at which sane and sober men yell

senselessly until any dispassionate stranger looking at them would believe that he was in a lunatic

asylum for exceptionally dreadful cases of mental derangement. The older I grow, continues Shaw, the

more I feel such exhibitions to be, as part of the serious business of the government of a nation, entirely

intolerable and disgraceful to human nature and civic decency3. The unwieldy constituencies, thus, do

not ensure the right choice of the representatives. In place of democracy, remarks Gandhiji, we seemobocracy. Decent, capable and silent men, therefore, shun the din and dust of such elections and the

unscrupulous and thick-skinned candidates carry the day with their handy weapons of bribery and

corruption. Prohibitive expenses entailed in the elections naturally drive democracy into the arms of the

capitalists who ultimately rule the roost.

Moreover, the present system of elections in vast constituencies tends to grow too mechanical and hence

dull. The voters do not have any direct knowledge of the candidates who are set up by rigid party

organisations or caucuses. The elections have hardly any local interest because there is too much

centralisation of legislation and administration. The apathy of the voters in all the democratic countries

has, therefore, become proverbial. When an election takes place voters have to be virtually dragged to

the booths. Even in a progressive country like the USA, on an average, less than half the population

qualified to vote exercises the privilege. In a system where only hands are counted not heads, where

votes are only reckoned not weighed, the intelligentsia cannot be expected to display much enthusiasm.

3.3 Poli tical CaucusesThe prevalence of well-organised political parties leaves scarcely any scope for independent thought and

action. An individual may be the best-qualified candidate, but if he is not a favourite of the party bosses

he stands no chance at the elections. Even the party candidates require constant whipping in the

legislatures. I do not mean to suggest that the modern party system does not have merits at all. It is quite

useful in educating the electorate on specific issues of national importance. But it must be admitted that

modern parties have grown too rigid and crystallised. In the words of AR Lord, "the party system seems to

be too mechanical a method of dividing opinion to represent the popular will with any approach to

exactness1. "Our present electoral methods" writes HG Wells, "is a mere caricature of representative

government". "It has produced upon both sides of the Atlantic, big, stupid, and corrupt party machines2.

The process of discussions in the legislatures has become wholly unreal, the result of every important

debate being almost a foregone conclusion dictated by the ruling party. The so-called representative

parliaments are, therefore, fast falling into public contempt as mere talking shops.

3.4 CentralisationThe dangers of foreign aggression in a war-obsessed world have resulted in concentration of political

13


14/40

power. This excessive centralisation of parliamentary work has reduced democracy to a mirage and a

costly show. There is over-congestion of business in legislatures. This congestion leads to inefficiency,

undue delays and waste of time and energy. It also nullifies the very basic principle of democracy: "What

touches all must be decided by all."

These, in short, are the drawbacks from which modern democracy suffers. Many other shortcomings

could be easily enumerated. But it will not be germane to our main purpose. Let it suffice to say that

democracy is really at the crossroad. It must survive. But which way shall it go?

14


15/40

Chapter4The Gandhian Way

Modern thinkers have suggested various ways in which democracy could possibly tide over the crisis.Prof. Laski expects that the ending of the paradox of poverty in the midst of potential plenty by thesocialisation of vested interests would make for sound and stable democracy. But is socialism enough?We have already seen how socialised democracy of the Soviet brand has resulted in totalitarianism andregimentation of the people.

Which way, then shall democracy go? My answer is: It must go the Gandhian Way. This implies twobasic principles: non-violence and decentralisation. Let me explain these principles in some details.

4.1 Non-ViolenceAccording to Mahatma Gandhi, democracy can only be saved through non-violence because democracy,so long as it is sustained by violence, cannot provide for or protect the weak. "My notion of democracy isthat under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest. That can never happenthrough violence."1 "Western democracy as it functions today," continues Gandhiji, "is diluted Nazism or

Fascism". "At best it is merely a cloak to hide the Nazi or fascist tendencies of imperialism". Again:"democracy and violence can il l go together. The states that are today nominally democratic have eitherto become frankly totalitarian, or, if they are to become democratic, they must become courageously non-violent2". Otherwise, constitutional democracy would remain a distant dream. The capitalist society isexploitation personified, and the essence of all kinds of exploitation is violence. In order to root outexploitation, therefore, a non-violent society or state has to be established. Such a society, of necessity,must be based on economic freedom and equality, because without economic equity there can exist noreal political democracy.

How is this economic equality and freedom to be brought about? One way is Soviet communism which, inpractice, means the dictatorship of the proletariat or the violent and ruthless suppression of the rentierclass. Even the life of the proletariat is regulated rigidly to such an extent that freedom and democracyare, more or less, nullified. The remedy, in other words, becomes worse than the disease itself. Andtotalitarian state is merely the modern name for tyranny with up-to-date techniques. Such tyranny, even in

the name of the efficiency of the war-machine, inevitably throttles the free and natural development ofhuman personality. As John Stuart Mill observes, we should not forget that in the long run the worth of astate is the worth of the individuals composing it. "A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may bemere docile instruments in its hand even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no greatthing can really be accomplished1". "Hence the supreme need for evolving democracy on non-violentlines.

4.2 Decentralisation(In a democracy, power flows upward from the people. The correct expression would therefore beinversion, instead of decentralisation of power - People First)

What, then, is the technique of non-violent democracy? It is decentralisation. Violence logically leads tocentralisation; the essence of non-violence is decentralisation. Gandhiji has always been advocating such

decentralisation of economic and political power in the form of, more or less, self-sufficient and self-governing village communities. He regards such communities as the models of non-violent organisation.Gandhiji, of course, does not mean that the ancient Indian village republics should be revived exactly inthe old form; that is neither possible nor desirable. Necessary changes will have to be introduced in viewof modern changed circumstances and needs. Moreover, the old rural communities were not free from allshortcomings. It, must however, be conceded that these village communes contained within them thegerms of an ideal economic and political organisation maximum in the form of decentralisation of well-knitand coordinated village communities with their positive and direct democracy, non-violent cottageeconomy and human contacts. "That state will be the best," declares Gandhiji, "which is governed the

15


16/40

least."*

It must be made possible for the individual to belong to a variety of small bodies possessing executive powers, dealing both with productionand with local administration. As a member of these, he can once again feel that he counts politically, that his will matters, and that his workis really done for society It would seem, then, that the machinery of Government must be reduced in scale. It must be made manageableby being made local, so that, in seeing the concrete results of their political labours before them, people can be brought to realise that whereself-government is a fact, society is malleable to their wills because society is themselves.2

According to Prof. Aldous Huxley, the political road to a better society is the road of decentralisation andresponsible self-government3" Centralisation of power results in curtailment of individual liberties and aprogressive regimentation of the people even in countries hitherto enjoying a democratic form ofgovernment. "Centralisation makes for uniformity; it lacks the genius of time and place3." Lewis Mumford,the well-known sociologist, recommends Elucidating the advantages of local self-government in villagesand communes, Dr Beni Prasad states:

"The perfect unit of self-government is a familiar environment in which, as Aristotle would say, people can know one anothers character. Invillages, townships or communes, autonomy reproduces the advantages of direct democracy, rousing civic patriotism, lifting the individualbeyond himself, encouraging habits of cooperation, training the judgement and imparting administrative experience to millions who cannothope to enter representative assemblies or services at a distance. Local self-government in towns or districts lightens the burden of centrallegislatures and administrations. In the big states of the modern world, it has the sovereign merit of preventing the individual from beingsubmerged in huge electorates. These tend to inspire a sort of awe, a sense of individual impotence like that which people feel when theycontemplate the majestic and eternal forces of the inanimate world. The resulting fatalism of the multitude is best corrected by local self-government."1

the building up of small balanced communities in the open country. Such small communities enjoying avery large measure of local self-government become the proper training grounds of true and vitaldemocracy. They are an invaluable antidote against the bureaucratic spirit and facilitate an informeddiscussion and appropriate solution of local problems. "It was in small communities," declared Lord Bryce,"that democracy first arose. It was from them that the theories of its first literary prophets and apostleswere derived. It is in them that the way in which the real will of the people tells upon the working ofgovernment can best be studied, because most of the questions that come before the people are withintheir own knowledge2".

4.3 Indian Rural RepublicsWe can be legitimately proud of the fact that this institution of local self-government was developedearliest and preserved longest in India among all the countries of the earth3. The village communesexisted in our country from times immemorial. King Prithu, it is believed, first introduced the system while

colonising the Daub between the Ganges and the Jamuna. In the Manu Smriti and the Shanti Parva ofthe Mahabharat, there are many references to the existence of gram-sanghas. A description of theserural communities is also found in the Artha-shastra of Kautilya, who lived in 400 BC. In the ValmikiRamayana we read about the Janapada, which was, perhaps, a kind of federation of numerous villagerepublics. It is certain that the system was widely in existence in this country at the time of Greekinvasion. Megasthenes has left vivid impressions of the Pentads, as he called these Panchayats.Chinese travellers, Hieun Tsang and Fa Hien, tell us how India at the time of their visits was veryprosperous and the people were flourishing and happy beyond compare. An account of the villagecommonwealths during the seventh century is found in Shukracharyas Niti-Sara.

In fact, the village in India has been looked upon as the basic unit of administration as early as theearliest Vedic age. Gramini or the leader of the village is mentioned in the Rigveda (X. 62.II; 107.5).Reference to the gram sabhas or the local village assemblies are found in the Jatakas as well. Shreni

was the well-known term for merchant guilds. "The village continued to be regarded as a corporatepolitical unit throughout the post Vedic period. Thus in the Vishnu and Manu Smritis, the village isreckoned as the smallest political unit in the state fabric."1

The tiny Indian village republics continued to flourish during the Hindu, Muslim and Peshwa governmentstill the advent of the East India Company. They survived the wreck of dynasties and downfall of empires.The independent development of local government provided like the shell of the tortoise, a haven ofpeace where the national culture could draw in for its own safety when political storms burst over theland2. The Kings received only state revenues from the village commonwealths and generally did notinterfere with their local government. As Sir Charles Trevellyn remarks, one foreign conqueror after

16


17/40

another has swept over India, but the village municipalities have stuck to the soil like their own kushagrass. In his famous minute of 1830, Sir Charles Metcalfe, the then acting governor-general of Indiawrote:"The village communities are little republics, having nearly everything they can want within themselves, and almost independent of anyforeign relations. They seem to last where nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down; revolution succeeds revolution.but thevillage community remains the same. . . This union of the village communities, each one forming a separate little state in itself, has, I

conceive, contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the peoples of India, through all the revolutions and changes whichthey have suffered. It is in a high degree conducive to their happiness, and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence.I wish, therefore, that the village constitutions may never be disturbed and I dread everything that has a tendency to break them up."3

But Fate willed it otherwise. The inordinate and unscrupulous greed of the East India Company causedgradual disintegration of these gram panchayats. The deliberate introduction of ryotwari system asagainst the village tenure system dealt a deathblow to the corporate life of the village republics. Thecentralisation of all executive and judicial powers in the hands of the British bureaucrats also deprived thevillage functionaries of their age-long powers and influence.

It would, however, be foreign to the purpose of this book to go into the details of the organisation of theIndian village republics. As Dr Annie Besant observed, "The officials keep the old names, but the oldpanchayat2was elected by the householders of the village and was responsible to them. Now the officersare responsible to government officials and their interest lies in pleasing them, not in satisfying the

electors, as of old."1

Though the Indian village republics were not without drawbacks, they were remarkable experiments ingenuine democracy and local self-government. The modern development of centralised control withoutsufficient local and corporate life has everywhere made politics barren and mechanical. There is also anendless conflict between the interest of the individual and the group or the state. But the Indian ruralpanchayats very successfully integrated these conflicting interests and made socio-political life humanand productive. As Acharya Vinoba Bhave puts it, each individual in these gram sabhas was his ownking; yet he was bound in indissoluble ties to his fellow-citizens2. While there was full scope for thedevelopment of his personality, every citizen was a responsible and useful member of the small state.

The decentralisation of political power as manifested in the village communities was, of course, verymuch different from the western type of devolution or decentralisation. Indian decentralisation was both

functional as well as territorial, with the result that there was harmony of social interests and spontaneityof political life.

The Indian rural communes were free from most of the evils that infect modern democratic governments.Since money economy was hardly existent, the scope for bribery and corruption was next to nothing.

Absence of organised and aggressive capitalism saved democracy from being pocketed. In the smallconstituencies, elections were mostly unanimous and instinctive; those village elders who commandeduniversal respect were chosen by the village as a matter of course without wasting a single pie onelectioneering. Due to widest decentralisation and local government there was scarcely any chance ofcongestion of work in the rural assemblies. Indian democracy, thus, was direct, virile, positive, productiveand non-violent, as against modern democracy which is mostly indirect, dull, negative, unproductive andviolent. It is desirable, therefore, to resuscitate indigenous institutions and make them the basis of thefuture constitution for swaraj.

As Dr Radhakamal Mukerjee aptly comments, "Indian type of decentralised democracy will be moreadaptive and life-giving than the imitation of Western political methods. It will also be a distinctivelyeastern contribution to the political history of man, infatuated as it is with the strange and tangled game ofaggressive powers and colossal empires of the West". Continues Dr. Mukerjee:"It will furnish the basis of a new type of polity which in its coordination of diverse local and functionalgroups will be more satisfying in the State constructions of the future than the centralised structures of theRoman-Teutonic mould or the later parliamentary pattern. Humanity all over the world is imprisoned in thebleak institutional orderliness of a mechanical and exploitative type of State. And nothing is more needed

17


18/40

today than a new principle of social constitution which will once again orient man and his allegiances innatural and elastic groups for a freer expression of his gifts and instincts."14.4 Economics of DecentralisationThe organisation of decentralised rural commonwealths is highly conductive to equitable economicdistribution. The present capitalist society, in which the means of production are controlled mainly by the

bourgeois class, has failed to establish enduring peace and real prosperity in the world. Socialism, on theother hand, has mercilessly rooted out the rentier class altogether. While it has raised the standard ofliving of the masses by capturing the instruments of production, Soviet communism is, by no means, anunmixed blessing. Its huge and powerful machinery of planning has reduced individuals to, more, or less,non-entities and automatons. Moreover, Russia has also begun to spread its wings over theneighbouring countries. However high her intentions may be, we cannot afford to view USSRs role ininternational politics with equanimity. We cannot favour any type of imperialism, whether capitalist orsocialist. Large scale and centralised socialism tends to grow aggressive and imperialist; it cannot,therefore, herald a new world order in which peace, welfare and freedom are guaranteed to all countries,big or small.

What, then, is the solution? Decentralised cottage industrialism shows the way. The Indian villagecommunes had evolved a well-balanced economic system by eschewing the two extremes of laissez faire

and totalitarian control. After serious experimentation they had discovered a golden and happy meanbetween capitalism and socialism. They had developed an ideal form of cooperative agriculture andindustry, in which there was scarcely any scope for exploitation of the poor by the rich. As Gandhiji puts it,production wasalmost simultaneous with consumption and distribution. Commodities manufactured incottages and domestic factories were for immediate use and not for distant markets. Such small scaleand localised production on a self-sufficiency basis automatically eliminated capitalist exploitation. Itvirtually established economic equality without either ruthlessly curtailing individual liberty or allowing afew individuals to boss over others. Needless to mention that, according to Gandhian ideals, thedecentralised cottage industries should be organised on a cooperative and not capitalistic basis. If a fewcapitalists are allowed to control the domestic factories as in Japan, the cottage workers will continue tobe exploited as mere labourers.

Economics of decentralisation would also spare us from the evils of excessive mechanisation. "Owing tothe extensive use of machinery and division of labour," declares Karl Marx, "the work of the proletariatshas lost all individual character, and consequently all charm for the work-man." "He becomes anappendage of the machine. . . ."1. In the modern manufacturing process the workers is transformed into"a cripple and a monster." On the other hand, "the independent peasant or handicraftsman developsknowledge, insight and will"2. Although Karl Marx recognised the disadvantages of mechanised large-scale production, he hoped that they would be eliminated in a socialist state. But rationalisedmechanisation, whether in a capitalist or socialist society, is sure to exercise its unhealthy influence onthe physical, intellectual and moral wellbeing of the workers. "The elimination of exploitation by theabolition of private ownership of production and distribution," writes Prof. Borsodi, "does not reach theroot of the trouble." "The factories undesirable attributes will still remain to plague mankind"3. Gandhiji,therefore, is against modern industrialisation.

It is very wrong to think, however, that he is hostile to all types of machinery. What he objects to is the"indiscriminate multiplication of machinery." Observes Gandhiji:

"Mechanisation is good when the hands are too few for the work intended to be accomplished. It is an evil when there are more hands thanrequired for the work, as is the case in India."4

Today, machinery has reduced workers to ciphers; they have lost their individuality in huge factories withgiant machines working noisily day and night. Gandhiji would however certainly welcome small andefficient machines that could be beneficial to the millions of peasants and artisans by lightening theirlabour.

18


19/40

Even from the standpoint of employment, cottage industrialisation is of prime importance. "Fullemployment" is the latest slogan of economic planning in the West. But can employment be assured to allthe citizens under mechanised large-scale production? When highly industrialised countries like theUnited Kingdom and the USA have not yet been able to provide employment to millions of their people,can we in India with a population of 400 millions legitimately expect to meet the problem of unemploymentby multiplying mills and factories? At present all the heavy and large-scale industries in our countryabsorb only about two million workers. If, according to the Bombay planners, the heavy industries areencouraged and expanded, say, five times, they shall be able to employ about 10 million people. But whatabout the rest? The Indian farmer himself is only partially employed; he is badly in need of supplementaryindustries to add to his meagre income. Cottage industrialisation on a mass scale is, therefore, the rightsolution. Instead of "mass production," there should be organised production by the masses in thenumberless village communities. A few heavy or key industries will, of course, be necessary for moderneconomic planning.

Let us not fear that the cottage industries in our rural republics will be uneconomical. Henry Ford, who isone of the most eminent industrialist that the modern world has produced, declares that as a generalrule, a large plants is not economical1. There is therefore, no point in centralising manufacturing process."A product," states Henry Ford, "that is used all over the country ought to be made all over the country inorder both to save transportation and to distribute buying power more evenly." Fords eventual ideal is"complete decentralisation in which plants will be small and so situated that the workers will be both

farmers and industrialists". "That would make not only for a more general independence on the part of theindividual but also would make for cheaper goods and cheaper food"2.

The capitalistic society, with its large-scale and centralised production has so often hurled the world intobloody and devastating wars. Should all this tragic loss of life and money not be included in the costs oflarge-scale production? This practical consideration renders mechanised production very costly anduneconomical, indeed.

4.5 Philosophy of DecentralisationIt must be clearly understood that Gandhiji does not advocate decentralisation only because of itseconomic and political advantages. To Gandhiji decentralisation envisions and upholds the cultural orspiritual ideal of "simple living and high thinking". "The mind is a restless bird," says Gandhiji, "The more itgets, the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied . . . The more we indulge our passions, the more

unbridled they become. Our ancestors, therefore, set a limit to our indulgences. They saw that happinesswas largely a mental condition. They saw that our real happiness and health consisted in a proper use ofour hands and feet1". Gandhiji, thus, regards simplicity as a cultural and moral necessity. The celebratedscientist Prof. Einstein holds the same view:"Possession, outward success, publicity, luxury-to me these have always been contemptible. I believethat a simple and unassuming manner of life is best for everyone, best for both the body and the mind"2.

But simplicity does not mean voluntary poverty and loin-cloth existence for all time. Gandhijis standardof necessities and minimum comforts is quite high. But luxuries have no place in his "good life." He doesnot hanker after raising merely the standard of living; he wants to raise the standard of life.

Allied to the ideal of simplicity is the consideration of human values as against the metallic values of life.To Gandhiji, man is the supreme consideration, or as Protogoras puts it, the measure of all things. Inplace of money economy he advocates life economy. It is this emphasis on the human side of socialand economic reconstruction that forms the ideological background of the khadi and village industriesmovement. "Khadi spirit means fellow feeling with every human being on earth"3. The ancient Indianvillage communes, with their cooperative spirit, embodied the same morality. To the modern economicman there is no god other than gold. But Gandhiji would not like us to gain the whole world at the cost ofour souls. Sanctity of physical labour is another fundamental conception in the Gandhian philosophy ofdecentralisation. "It is a tragedy of the first magnitude that millions have ceased to use their hands ashands"4. "We are destroying the matchless living machines, that is, our own bodies, by leaving them to

19


20/40

rust and trying to substitute lifeless machinery for them"5. From Gandhijis viewpoint, labour is life; it is ablessing and not a curse.

A little reflection would indicate that these ideals of simplicity, human values and sanctity of labour are inthe last analysis, founded on non-violence that is the bedrock of Gandhian thought. "As I was picturing lifebased on non-violence," observes Gandhiji, "I saw that it must be reduced to the simplest termsconsistent with high thinking". "Society based on non-violence can only consist of groups settled invillages in which voluntary cooperation is the condition of dignified and peaceful existence... The nearestapproach to civilisation based upon non-violence is the erstwhile village republic of India. I admit that itwas crude. I know that there was in it no non-violence of my definition and conception. But the germ wasthere"1. Gandhiji, consequently, passionately pleads for a civilisation founded on villagism. "Ruraleconomy as I have conceived it eschews exploitation altogether, and exploitation is the essence ofviolence"2.

According to Mahatma Gandhi, non-violence is the greatest force in the world. It is the supreme law oflife. "All society is held together by non-violence even as the earth is held in her position by gravitation3".Or, as TH Green would put it, Will, not force, is the basis of the State4. The utter futility of violence hasbeen conclusively demonstrated by the two World Wars. Civilisation cannot survive another war. In thename of civilisation and humanity, therefore, there is no other choice before us but the completerenunciation of the creed of violence. Instead of attempting to annihilate the world with an atom bomb we

have to learn to perceive the whole universe in the tiniest atom. Without such a vision, the world is sure toperish.

4.6 The Sociological AspectDecentralised village communism should be promoted from the sociological standpoint as well. Open-airrural life in place of modern congested cities will improve national health and hygiene. The hectic andnoisy urban life slowly though surely tells upon our nerves and causes very great strain both to the bodyand the mind. Rural communes with their peaceful life of health-giving labour in the fields, cottagefactories and workshops, would impart joy and vigour to society fast growing dull and mechanical.

Village communism would also make for social harmony and social security. The village communities inthe past regarded themselves as big joint families; the misfortunes of an individual were the misfortunesof the whole village. If a person suffered from theft the rest of the community ultimately made up the loss.

If a villagers cottage got accidentally burned down, members of the village would contribute for rebuildingthe cottage once again. If the head of a family suddenly died, the orphans were looked after andsupported by the whole community. Marriages or deaths in one family were deemed to be the commonconcerns of the village. Division of labour and professions in the community provided automatic insuranceagainst unemployment. It is true that petty jealousies, rivalries, and feuds were not altogether absent. Butthat only indicates that the harmony of the village communities was not the peace of the graveyard.

4.7 Joy in LifeRestoration of village life would mean renewed gaiety, enjoyment and recreation to the people. In his"Corporate Life in Ancient India," Dr Majumdar describes the amusements in Indian villages from theremotest antiquity. In the Vedic period there were clubhouses which were later known as gosbtbis.Afterdays hard work, people used to meet in the evening and amuse themselves with music, dancing, storytelling and discussion of local news. As early as the Maurya period, village concerts used to be arranged

on occasions of holidays and festivals. Here too, as in other aspects of village life, spirit of brotherhoodand cooperation actuated the villagers. Not to cooperate in such public festivities was regarded as a sinagainst the community. These ancient traditions continue to this day in our vil lages.

4.8 National DefenceDecentralisation and ruralisation are imperative for successful defence against foreign aggression; theyalone can defy modern warfare. The centralised industries provide an easy target for air bombing so thata few bombs can successfully dislocate the whole national economy. Thus, from the strategic point ofview a country with its large-scale industries concentrated in a few big towns becomes highly vulnerable.

20


21/40

The remarkable organisation of the industrial cooperatives in China is, perhaps, the chief factor thatenabled the Chinese to withstand Japanese aggression for so many years. The Indusco movement madealmost all the Chinese villages self-sufficient in regard to the necessities of life by spreading a network ofcottage industries in the remotest corners. "In a world subject to periodical outbreaks of intense andprolonged war, so far as possible the production of essential requirements like food stuffs and clothingmust be available locally; dependence on distant markets might be fatal in times of serious stress. Whendecentralisation of production is becoming a dire military necessity it would be sheer madness to neglectthe admirable system of decentralised production already existing in this country."1

It needs hardly any argument to state that the basic cause of all wars is economic exploitation andinordinate greed for capturing world markets. After the recent War, the Allies are now hastily planning toincrease their exports in order to maintain a high standard of living at home. This imperialist race formarkets is sure to engender mutual jealousies and conflict, ultimately leading to another World War, thecalamitous consequences of which we shudder even to visualise. To banish war, capitalism and itscorollary imperialism have to be abolished. "Peace between states," writes Prof. Laski, "depends uponpeace within states"2. And peace within states is impossible without an equitable system of distribution.Such system can flourish only under decentralised industrialism on cooperative foundations. Cottageeconomy would deal a decisive blow to greedy imperialism and, thus, spell international harmony. Whatwe need is, therefore, economic disarmament and not mere military disarmament. "The more local andregional loyalties flourish within the great states, the less danger is there that aggressive nationalism will

be able to tear the world to pieces"1.

4.9 Is It MedievalismThe most hackneyed criticism levelled against Gandhism is that it puts the hands of the clock back andtakes us to the medieval times. But such attacks on Gandhijis ideas are founded on grossmisapprehensions. Gandhiji does not wish that village communities should be isolated units entirely cutoff from the rest of the country and the world. This is neither possible nor desirable. Gandhiji wants thatthe village republics should be basic units of swaraj governance, enjoying maximum autonomy in social,economic and political affairs. The villages should be properly coordinated to the taluka, the district, theprovince and union through the taluka, district, provincial assemblies and federal parliament.

It is wrong to suppose that the village communities were isolated entities even in ancient and medievalIndia. We learn from the Manusmriti, the Mahabharata, Kautilyas Arthashastra and other Sanskrit books

that there were officers at the head of one village, ten villages, twenty villages, one hundred villages, onethousand villages, each officer supervising those below him. It is true that each village enjoyed a verylarge measure of local self-government consistent with national safety and efficiency. But the ruralrepublics gradually passed into larger political organisations on a federal basis rising layer upon layerfrom the lower rural stratification on the broad basis of popular self-government. Dr. RadhakumudMookerji mentions how these different administrative units, one above the other, were known as Sabha,Mabasahba, and Nattar. The best account of this type of hierarchy is obtained from the administrativeorganisation of the great Chola Empire under Rajaraja, as reflected in the numerous inscriptionsassociated with that King. The smallest unit, the base of the administrative system, was the village (uru)or town (nagara). The next higher unit was called nadu or kurram. The next position in hierarchy belongedto kottam, or visaya. Above this came the mandala or rashtra, the province of the empire. KP Jayaswal in"Hindu Polity" also tells us about the constitution of the janapada or the realm assembly, representingnumerous regional councils of the country. All these facts clearly indicate that the Indian village system

was not a relic of tribalism but a coordinated administrative organisation on federal principles. In moderntimes, this coordination will naturally have to be much more systematic and organised. But thefundamental idea of decentralisation and devolution of power that has stood the test of centuries ought tobe the cornerstone of out future constitution. Such an organisation instead of being medieval, would bethe model for an ideal state. "Going back to villages," observes Dr Radhiakrishnan "is not to becomeprimitive". "It is the only way to keep up a mode of existence that is instinctive to India, that supplied heronce with a purpose, a faith and meaning. It is the only way to keep our species civilised. India of thepeasant and rustic life, of village communities, of forest hermitage and spiritual retreats has taught theworld has injured no land and sought no domination over others."1

21


22/40

4.10 Internationalism v/s UniversalismWe glibly talk of internationalism and scoff at Gandhijis villagism. But have we ever cared to understandthat Gandhiji goes much farther than internationalism? He wants not only internationalism but alsouniversalism. He appeals to us to feel one not only with our fellow human beings in the village, province,country and the world, but also to tune ourselves with the infinite universe. But for practising and realisingthis ideal of universalism it is not at all necessary for us to fly ceaselessly to the ends of heaven and

earth; we can feel one with the universe while living quietly in our small cottage. Internationalism anduniversalism are states of mind and not creations of times and distance. One can follow villagism anduniversalism simultaneously. According to Gandhiji the basis of our material existence should be thevillage, while the universe ought to be our cultural or spiritual abode. This is the essence of his doctrine ofswadeshi. Gandhiji wants to serve humanity and the universe, but through his immediate neighbours andthe country. "My patriotism," says Gandhiji, "is both exclusive and inclusive." "It is exclusive in the sensethat in all humility I confine my attention to the land of my birth. But it is inclusive in the sense that myservice is not of a competitive or antagonistic nature. I want to identify myself with everything that lives."2

4.11 A New Civil isationThe Gandhian way is not a medieval mode of life but a new civilisation. Various panaceas have beenadvanced for curing the ills of modern civilisation. But all of them are fundamentally similar in theiremphasis on coercion and violence.

Gandhiji himself explained his conception of the new civilisation, or as he calls it, the Ram Rajya:

"It can be religiously translated as the Kingdom of God on earth. Politically translated, it is perfectdemocracy in which, inequalities, based on possession, non-possession, colour, race, creed or sex,vanish. In it, land and state belong to the people; justice is prompt, perfect and cheap. There is freedom

of worship, speech and the pressall this because of the reign of the self-imposed law of moralrestraint. Such a state must be based on truth and non-violence, and consist of prosperous, happy andself-contained villages and village communities."1

22


23/40

Chapter5Village as Basic Unit

As has been indicated earlier, Gandhiji desires that self-sufficient and self-governing villages should bethe basic units of public administration in free India. Such a scheme would be in conformity with the timehonoured traditions of the country. In case of small and neighbouring villages, a group of villages mayconstitute the basic unit of administration.

5.1 The PanchayatEvery village shall elect by the vote of all its adults a panchayat ordinarily of five persons. In the case ofbigger villages, the number may vary from seven to eleven. The panchayat shall elect unanimously itspresident or sarpanch. If this unanimity is not possible, all the adults of the village shall elect the presidentdirectly out of the member of the panchayat.

The terms of the panchayat shall ordinarily be three years. There will be nothing to prevent the samemember or members of the panchayat from being re-elected for the second or third terms, but not more.If, however, a certain member of the panchayat loses the confidence of village before the expiry of his

usual terms, he shall be recalledby majority-vote of seventy-five per cent.

The village panchayat shall have the sole authority to appoint, suspend or dismiss the village servantslike the choukidar, patwari and police officials.

The decisions of the panchayat shall be, as far as possible, unanimous specially in cases that affect theright of minorities.

5.2 Its Funct ionsSince the villages shall enjoy maximum local autonomy, the functions of the village panchayats shall bevery wide and comprehensive, covering almost all aspects of social, economic and political life of thevillage community: They shall be:

1 Educationa. to run a primary or lower basic school through the medium of a productive craft, thus combining culturaland technical education.b. to maintain a library and a reading room. Books in the library should be educative, having a directbearing on the social, economic and political activities of the village.c. to run a night school for adults.

2 Recreationa. to provide for akhada, gymnasium and playgrounds. Swadeshi games and sports shall be encouraged.b. to arrange art and craft exhibitions from time to time.c. to celebrate collectively the important festivals of all communitiesd. to organise seasonal fairs.e. to conduct bhajan and kirtan mandals.f. to encourage folk songs, folk dance and folk theatre.

3 Protectiona. to maintain village guardians for general protection of the village against thieves,dacoits and wildanimals.b. to impart regular training to all citizens in the technique of satyagraha or non-violent resistance anddefence.

4 Agriculturea. to assess the rent of each agricultural plot in the village

23


24/40

b. to collect rent from the landholders.c. to encourage and organise consolidation of holdings and cooperative farming.d. to make proper arrangements for irrigation.e. to provide for good seeds and efficient implements through cooperative farming.f. to see that, as far as possible, all the necessary food grains are produced in the village itself. Thepresent system of commercial crops shall be discouraged.g. to review, scrutinise and, if necessary, scale down the debts and regulate their rates of interest. Wherepossible, to organise cooperative credit banks.h. to check soil erosion and reclaim wasteland through joint effort.

5 Industriesa. to organise the production of khadi for village consumption.b. to organise other village industries on cooperative lines,c. to run a cooperative dairy. The cow shall be encouraged in place of the buffalo.d. to run a village tannery using the hides of dead animals.

6 Trade and commercea. to organise cooperative marketing of agricultural and industrial products.b. to organise cooperative consumers societies.c. to export only the surplus commodities and import only those necessities that cannot be produced in

the village.d. to maintain cooperative godowns.e. to provide cheap credit facilitites to village artisans for essential purposes,

7 Sanitation & Medical Reliefa. to maintain good sanitation in the village through proper drainage system.b. to prevent public nuisances and check and spread of epidemics.c. to make adequate arrangements for healthy drinking water.d. to maintain a village hospital and maternity-home providing free medical treatment. Indigenoussystems of medicine, naturopathy and biochemistry shall be encouraged.

8 Justice

a. to provide cheap and speedy justice to villagers. The Panchayats shall have wide legal powers, bothcriminal and civil.b. to make arrangement for free legal aid and information.

9 Finance & Taxationa. to levy and collect village taxes for special purposes. Payments in kind and collective manual labour forvillage projects will be encouraged.b. to collect private donations on social and religious occasions.c. to see that project accounts of income and expenditure are maintained. These shall be open to publicinspection and audit.

I have tried to make the list of functions fairly exhaustive in order to give to the reader an idea of the largemeasure of local autonomy that our villages shall enjoy.

EDITORIAL COMMENT"Two Democracies - Ancient India and Swiss"A v ideo f ilm p roduc ed by Nal in i Singh on behal f o f Doordarshanwhen Switzerland compl eted 700 years of democracy

The film begins with Switzerland and depicts that in Swiss villages, village councils are elected every yearthrough secret ballot. When asked whether the people did not find annual elections cumbersome, a voterresponds that they did not trust representatives for more than one year!

24


25/40

The Swiss village governments control all village resources including land, water system and forests.They elect a local professional to maintain land records. If he or she performs well, they re-elect him orher again. All changes in land-use, building activity and land transfers need approval of the villageassembly.

The film then spans through ancient monuments of South India. The rules of gram panchayats are

engraved on the outside of stone temples of Tamil Nadu so that all can read them. The rules declare thatthe gram sabha or village assembly consisting of all adult men and women is the supreme authoritycontrolling all village resources, officials and decision-making. Thus, women in India have beenfranchised since ages whereas they got enfranchised in the West only in this century. The rules furtherprovide that the sarpanch and panchs shall be elected every year by secret ballot and can be removedany time for misconduct. All village officials are appointed by the village assembly and are removable byit.

The film also shows that Buddhist scriptures of North India provide for similar rules for village panchayats.The villages in India thus functioned since ages as self-sustaining tiny republics. The village assemblygave land to families on village tenure system, that is, lease for defined purpose, on an annual tax usuallyin the form of share in the produce. All services such as those of carpenter and blacksmith were availablein the village and the village assembly ensured that the needs of all were met.

Over Indias long civilisation, in parts of India, self-seeking priesthood has frozen distinction based ontrade by division based on caste, and self-seeking feudal interests converted village tenure system tofeudal tenancies. Yet, as described by Sir Charles Metcalfe, the then British Governor General of India inhis minute recorded in 1830 (see page 24 ante), the institution of village panchayats was very muchexistent and vibrant in various parts of India in the nineteenth century. The colonial rule finally destroyed itby placing villages under the control of state governments through the district collector.

Gandhiji tried to re-connect India with its age-old democratic traditions that nurtured Indias spiritualphilosophy, art forms, economy and social wellbeing. The people were with him, but the leadership chosenot to heed his advice and instituted a centralised system based on exploitative colonial institutions. Thisperpetuated exploitation of the people and led to social, environmental and economic destruction of India.

25


26/40

Chapter6Taluka and District Panchayats

To coordinate the social, economic and political activities of villages there shall be taluka (tahsil) and

district panchayats. The functions of these higher bodies shall be advisory and not mandatory; they shall

guide, advise and supervise, and not command the lower panchayat.

6.1 Taluka PanchayatDuly elected presidents of a certain number of villages shall constitute the taluka panchayat. The number

of members of panchayat will naturally depend on the number of villages grouped into a taluka.

Ordinarily, there shall be about 20 villages in a taluka with an approximate total population of say, 20,000.

Needless to mention that the sizes of the existing talukas will have to be reduced considerably in order to

make their executive, legislative and judicial work manageable and efficient. The term of taluka

panchayat, like the village panchayats, shall be three years.

The functions of the Taluka Panchayat shall be:

a. to guide, supervise and coordinate the activities of village panchayats, and audit their accounts.

b.

gandhian constitution of india

Documents